Minnesota
How Davis v. State of Wisconsin applies in Minnesota: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
In Minnesota, the principles espoused in Davis v. State of Wisconsin are reflected in the application of governmental immunity, which is limited when it comes to negligent conduct by state entities. Minnesota recognizes exceptions where a state entity may be liable for injuries resulting from the performance of a discretionary function.
Governmental entities in Minnesota may be held liable for negligent acts unless they are engaged in a 'discretionary function' or an activity that enjoys immunity under state law.
The Court held that the state was liable for negligence connected to the maintenance of public property when it failed to act in a reasonable standard.
This case established that cities can be liable for negligence if they fail to prevent foreseeable injuries stemming from their non-discretionary actions.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals found the state liable for damages resulting from improper maintenance of a public roadway, highlighting the non-discretionary duties.
Minnesota's approach to governmental immunity diverges from the federal standard, which typically applies a broader scope of discretionary function immunity. While federal law may extend more protection to government actions, Minnesota courts are more willing to carve out exceptions for negligent acts that do not involve policy-making decisions.
Torts principles relating to governmental immunity and negligence are frequently tested on the Minnesota bar exam, often emphasizing the nuances in state versus federal standards.